VICE President Sara Z. Duterte cannot invoke freedom of expression as a defense against the impeachment article accusing her of issuing threats, as such statements go beyond protected speech, a House of Representatives trial spokesperson said on Wednesday.
House trial spokesperson Zia Alonto Adiong stressed that freedom of expression is not absolute and does not cover statements that constitute threats, particularly those classified as grave threats under the law.
‘Well, you know, the legal community is unanimous in saying that the freedom of expression is not absolute. It has certain limitations,’ Adiong said.
He underscored that political opinion and alleged grave threats cannot be placed on the same legal footing, emphasizing that threats are distinct from expressions of sentiment.
‘And one of the limitations actually is not to use this as a way to threaten, make threats or grave threats against anyone, right? It’s not an opinion, it’s a threat,’ Adiong, who represents Lanao del Sur, explained.
The Vice President has invoked freedom of expression in response to the threats allegation, which is expected to be among the first issues to be tackled when the Senate Impeachment Court opens trial on July 6.
Adiong maintained that the prosecution’s case is not about suppressing criticism of the government, but determining whether Duterte’s public statements crossed the line into serious threats against President Marcos, First Lady Liza Araneta-Marcos, and former Speaker Martin G. Romualdez.
‘It’s two separate issues. It’s not of the same type, and it should not also be taken on the same footing,’ Adiong pointed out.
‘Grave threat is a grave threat. It is not an expression of opinion,’ Adiong stressed.
He added that the allegation is serious, as Duterte herself allegedly mentioned contacting an individual who could carry out an instruction if something were to happen to her.
‘Just to be specific about the allegation of grave threats, in fact, the Vice President herself said that she had contacted or at the very least, reached out to a possible assassin where she enumerated these names if something happens to her. This is now over words,’ Adiong said.
Adiong added that it will be up to the defense to convince the Senate Impeachment Court to interpret the statements differently, but maintained that the prosecution believes the Vice President’s remarks are clear enough to be tested during trial.
‘As far as we are concerned, it’s very clear what the Vice President has said during the Zoom with the media. And it’s very clear that she had already made some understanding arrangement with the person that would be, that will carry out,’ Adiong said.
Show up
THE House prosecution panel said Duterte should personally appear before the Senate impeachment court if she intends to answer the charges in the proper forum.
Adiong said Duterte’s attendance would send a strong message to the public that she is ready to confront the allegations against her.
‘It’s important because we’re talking about the impeachment trial, which the whole country will be watching. And that’s the strongest message, a clear message that the Vice President can actually deliver to the people by way of, you know, answering these charges and be physically present during the trial by which she is actually being tried,’ said Adiong.
He noted that appearing before the court would reinforce earlier statements from Duterte’s camp that she is willing to face the allegations.
‘There’s no clearer message that would actually reinforce their claim in the previous months that they are willing now to answer these allegations in the proper forum, that they are ready, than to appear before the court. But then again, we would anticipate, probably, that the vice president may or may not appear in the trial,’ Adiong noted.
The issue of Duterte’s attendance resurfaced after she skipped previous House proceedings on the impeachment complaints, despite her camp’s insistence that the proper venue for addressing the allegations is the Senate.
Adiong, however, maintained that the prosecution’s position is clear.
‘But our position really is that she should attend. Because this is her trial,’ Adiong stressed.
He pointed out that the proceedings will openly tackle the charges against Duterte, including allegations involving threats, confidential funds, bribery, and unexplained wealth.
Adiong also said that earlier hearings could have provided Duterte an opportunity to present her side, but she chose not to attend.
With the Senate trial set to begin, Adiong said there should be no further reason for Duterte to skip the proceedings.
Regional translators
THE House prosecution panel is still considering the use of translators in major Philippine languages to make the impeachment proceedings more accessible to the public.
Impeachment adviser Robert Ace Barbers said the initiative aims to clearly and accurately explain the trial to Filipinos who are more comfortable in their native languages.
‘The impeachment process is broad in scope. It involves legal, procedural, and public information aspects. It cannot be explained by just one person. We need a team delivering a unified message,’ Barbers said.
He noted that while lawyer-spokespersons handle legal and procedural matters, efforts are underway to strengthen public communication.
‘We plan to explain the process in different languages so more Filipinos can understand it and avoid misinformation,’ he added.
Barbers emphasized that impeachment is a constitutional accountability mechanism that applies even to the highest officials and that the public must understand the process before forming conclusions.
He also urged Filipinos to watch the proceedings directly rather than rely solely on social media.
Barbers added that the prosecution’s goal is not only to present its case but also to ensure that the public understands the process based on facts, evidence, and the rule of law.